The Relative Size of Footprints Found in a Substrate
Christopher L. Murphy
n sasquatch research, the main evidence
we have at this time is alleged sasquatch
footprints. Generally, a ruler or tape
measure is set beside the print found and
then photographed (Fig. 1).
I
The measurement taken represents the Fig. 1. Footprint with a tape measure.
length of the print according to its depth in
the substrate. If the substrate were harder, the print would be shorter; if it were
softer, the print would be longer.
The reason for the difference is that the further the foot goes
into the substrate, then the more displacement is registered.
Keep in mind that the heel of a foot sticks out and the toes
curve up.
The maximum difference between a footprint and an actual
foot AS APPLICABLE TO HUMANS would be a wet print
on a hard surface compared with the actual foot as shown in
Fig. 2. The difference in length between the wet print and
the foot is an average of about 8.6% for human males.* In
other words, the actual foot is about 8.6% larger than the
wet print.
Shown in Fig. 3 are what we can call
the “red zones.” They are the extra
lengths a footprint takes on as it sinks
deeper into the substrate. With a
human being, about 6 feet tall, the
depth would need to be about 1 inch
to get the complete foot in the
footprint.
Fig. 2. Wet print and actual
foot.
4.82%
3.74%
Now, it stands to reason that the
Fig. 3. Human foot “red zones.”
bigger the person, the larger the red
zones. If a person were 7 feet tall and proportionate, then the depth would need to
be 1.17 inches; 8 feet tall would be 1.33 inches and so forth.
*The average is based on human male
footprints ranging in size from 8 inches to 13
inches long as determined by my own
calculation using established statistics.
1
Fig. 4 is a clay model of a supposed
sasquatch foot. The sole, completely
buried in sand, is an actual 16-inch
sasquatch cast, sanded down on the flat
side to about three quarters of an inch
thick. The heel has been “rounded out”
to sort of match what one would see in
a human foot if it were this large.
However, it appears a sasquatch heel Fig. 4. Clay model of a sasquatch foot.
“sticks out” much further than a human
heel. In this case, its heel “red zone” would be much larger than that of a human
even if the human was the same size as the sasquatch.
We don’t have anything concrete to ascertain the heel and toes “red zones” for a
sasquatch, so I am going to guess they are UP TO 13% in total or about 1.5 times
that of a human.
(NOTE: The average sasquatch footprint is about 1.5 times larger than the average
human male footprint according to Dr. H. Fahrenbach’s statistics. I accept that all
of the prints in his study included the complete foot or would essentially “net out”
to include such.)
Given a sasquatch print would have to be about 2 inches deep to register the entire
foot (twice that of a human), then we can create a chart that shows one-quarter inch
graduations. The increments are 1.625%
Wet print on rock
Print .25 inch deep
Print .50 inch deep
Print .75 inch deep
Print 1 inch deep
Print 1.25 inches deep
Print 1.50 inches deep
Print 1.75 inches deep
Print 2 inches deep
Add 13%
Add 11.38%
Add 9.75%
Add 8.12%
Add 6.5%
Add 4.88%
Add 3.25%
Add 1.625%
Add 0
Given the creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film left 14.5 inch footprints UP TO
about 1 inch deep, then we have to ADD 6.5% to arrive at its actual foot size. This
indicates a foot size of 15.44 inches. It is not hard to rationalize that prints in softer
soil miles away from the film site, made by the same creature, could indicate a foot
size of 15.5 inches. I will even go so far as to say 16 inches*. Keep in mind that one
of the casts Patterson took measured about 15 inches, so if the print were 1 inch
deep, the actual foot size would be 15.98 inches.
*Using the average of depths up to one inch,
the prints come out at 15.80 inches long.
2
If one wishes to compare the size of a print found in one location with that of a print
found in another location, simply determine the foot size of each print according to
the chart.
EXAMPLE: Given a 15-inch print was about 1.25 inches deep, and a 16-inch print
found at a different location was 1.75 inches deep, then the calculations are as
follows:
15 times 1.0488 equals 15.73-inch foot size
16 times 1.01625 equals 16.26-inch foot size
Here we would be looking at a one-half inch difference, and I would not rule out
the same creature for that small amount.
The area where this analysis significantly comes into play is when footprints are
found that are considered in the “human range.” Generally, a length of 12 inches or
shorter is considered in this range. Of course, the fact that the prints were made with
a un-shod foot says something to begin with, however, it is difficult to win this point
with skeptics. Saying that the prints were likely those of juvenile sasquatch has
some merit, but again is questioned.
If a 12-inch print is found, and is about one-quarter inch deep, then the foot size is
13.37 inches, which definitely puts it “up there” in the sasquatch range. Often,
footprints in the lower ranges are found on very hard surfaces, such as forest roads.
They don't sink in very far—less than one-quarter inch. Adding say 12% to such
prints is fully justified.
As to the higher range, prints measuring say 18 inches at onequarter inch depth, adding 11.38% puts the actual foot up at
20 inches. This is certainly “uncomfortably” large, however,
if the foot were measured in a proper measuring device for a
“pair of shoes,” as seen in Fig. 5, that would likely be the
result.
A bit of a complication arises when one wishes to determine
the size of the actual foot when all he has is a cast of the
footprint. Casts are always slightly larger than the foot that
made the print—both in length and width. When casts are Fig. 5. Foot measuring
device.
3
duplicated by pressing them in sand (i.e.,
not a mold) they again increase in
accordance with the cast generation. Fig. 6
shows the cast growth factors. What this
implies, for example, is that if you have an
original cast that is 16 inches long, then you
must SUBTRACT .70 inches before you
apply one of the addition percentages
previously discussed.
CAST GROWTH
COMPARISON TO ACTUAL FOOT — NO WEIGHT
CAST GENERATION
ORIGINAL CAST
FIRST GENERATION
SECOND GENERATION
THIRD GENERATION
LARGER BY (MAX.)
.70 inches (1.8 cm)
.82 inches (2.1 cm)
.94 inches (2.4 cm)
1.1 inches (2.7 cm)
NOTE: The increase applies to both the length and the width of the cast,
and all details within the cast are increased proportionately. Cast
generation growth applies only to casts made by pressing the cast to be
duplicated into sand.
Fig. 6. Cast Growth.
The application for a 16-inch cast if the print were one inch deep would be as
follows:
Cast size:
Less growth:
Adjusted Cast length:
Addition for full foot:
Actual foot size:
16 inches
.70 inches
15.3 inches
6.5%
16.30 inches (i.e., 15.3 x 1.065
What we have done here is to reduce the size of the cast
to the size of the actual print in the substrate, and then
added the additional percentage for the depth of the
print.
Whatever the case, be it footprints in the soil, or casts
made from a footprint, I would say that when a
sasquatch foot hits the ground, it does so at about the
red line shown in Fig. 7. What is above that line
registers in accordance with the how far the foot sinks
into the substrate. In this case, such would have been
about 1 inch as the full extent of the heel is still visible
in the other foot. How far does it extend out? I would
say up to 10% of the foot length. So if the footprint
measured 14.5 inches, then heel extended about 1.45
inches when on a flat, hard surface. This amount then
increasingly REGISTERS in the print as the foot goes
further into the substrate. When the depth reaches about
2 inches, the full heel registers. A cast taken of a print
at this depth could be used to “make a pair of shoes.”
Fig. 7. Where the foot hits the
ground.
4
EMAIL THAT ACCOMPANIED THIS PAPER
March 22, 2013
This paper which is posted at the following link xxxxxxxxxxxx addresses long-standing concerns as to
the true size of the foot that made a footprint. It follows discussions I have had with Dr. Jeff Meldrum
and Daniel Perez.
I first wish to thank Roger Knights for gifting me the book Footprints: Collection, Analysis, and
Interpretation by Louise M. Robbins, PhD, 1985. (Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, Illinois.
This is a truly marvelous work, but I doubt I have enough time left on this earth to truly “digest”
everything it contains.
Although I have tried to explain everything as concisely and understandably as I can, I think a little
preamble will be helpful.
There are actually TWO (2) aspect to the size of a foot. There is the size indicated by a footprint and
the size of the actual foot. The footprint may or may not be the same size as the actual foot. It all
depends on how deep the footprint went into a substrate. The deeper the foot sinks, the more it
registers. A human foot would hit a maximum required depth at about one inch.
Feet are not like blocks of wood. They curve out and up on all sides, especially at the heel. Think of
pushing a tennis ball into moist sand. To get an impression that shows the full circumference of the
ball, it has to be impressed right up to its center. To get the full length of a human foot it has to be
impress right up to the full extent of the back of the heel.
If you wish to see the difference in your own foot, simply make a wet footprint impression on your bath
mat and then place your foot beside the wet print. You will immediately see that your actual foot is
considerably larger than your wet footprint.
Now, with regard to the length of sasquatch footprints, they are all varying degrees of the length of the
actual foot that made the print. The deeper the print, the more it approaches the length of the actual
foot. A sasquatch foot would hit a maximum required depth at about two inches, or perhaps more. The
larger the foot, the more depth required.
What this all boils down to is that a footprint found in one location may have come from the same foot
(or length of foot) as a footprint found in another location that has a larger print measurement. One
cannot simple take his/her measuring device as “gospel.” It does not work that way, and the “print to
actual foot difference” is too great to simply say, “plus or minus one-quarter inch” or something along
those lines.
When I first embarked on this project I sent preliminary findings to Dr. Jeff Meldrum and he concurred
with the facts I have outlined here. I am not going to pin him down as to signing-off on all my numbers
and speculations. That would not be fair. What you need to do is take what I present into account with
regard to the works of others and what is stated in books, magazines, on-line, and in the media. Any
official work in this regard should be coordinated with Dr. Meldrum.
Chris Murphy
5